docs: correct the \bhabit stem rationale in the claim-language check - #388
Merged
Conversation
The comment above CLAIM_PATTERN said the open \bhabit stem "is kept deliberately in sync with the iLEAPP and ALEAPP implementations of the same check". The ALEAPP half of that is false: ALEAPP uses the closed \bhabits?\b and has in every revision of that file since it was written, with its own comment explaining that the closed form is deliberate because the open stem also matches "habitat". Justify the open stem on its own merits instead -- it catches "habitual" and "habitually", which the closed spelling misses -- keep the "habitat" cost with a note on how it was verified, and record the ALEAPP spelling as a deliberate divergence rather than a sync. Comment only; CLAIM_PATTERN is unchanged and the checker still exits 0. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What
The comment above
CLAIM_PATTERNin admin/scripts/check_claim_language.py justified the open\bhabitstem by saying the spelling "is kept deliberately in sync with the iLEAPP and ALEAPP implementations of the same check".The ALEAPP half of that is false. ALEAPP uses the closed
\bhabits?\b, and has in every revision of that file since it was written. Its own comment says the closed form is deliberate, because the open stem also matches "habitat". Only the iLEAPP half was true.Change
Comment only.
CLAIM_PATTERNis byte-for-byte unchanged — the open\bhabitstays.The rationale now:
scripts/artifacts)The same false line was corrected in iLEAPP as abrignoni/iLEAPP#1857; this mirrors that wording.
Verification
grep -rni habit scripts/artifacts/→ no matches at all, so no name or description uses "habitat" and the stated cost is accurate. This is a raw-text grep, so it also covers the 9 modules whose__artifacts_v2__the checker cannot read statically.python3 -m py_compile admin/scripts/check_claim_language.py→ cleanpython3 admin/scripts/check_claim_language.py→ exit 0, 155 modules checked, no unsupported claim language (the 9 unreadable-metadata modules it reports are pre-existing and untouched here)python3 admin/scripts/lint_changed.py --base-ref origin/main admin/scripts/check_claim_language.py→ PASS, 0 new warningsALEAPP is intentionally left alone.
🤖 Generated with Claude Code